At a recent Town Board meeting, I was “politely” reminded that, as just 20% of the five-member board, I should stop raising issues the other 80% disagree with.
But how can residents know where other board members stand on an issue if I don’t raise it at an open — not closed executive session — meeting?
As your councilwoman, my job is to be proactive on issues that affect the town and your quality of life – and to call attention to issues I believe aren’t being adequately or honestly addressed.
That’s why this column addresses two current – but very different – issues, one new, one old. Both were brought to my attention by residents. And both will continue to go unaddressed while some of my colleagues try to convince you to wait until some distant future date when, hopefully, you’ll have forgotten about them.
Should the board address a limited but imminent problem now – or deliberately dodge it by kicking the can down the road, hoping it will be forgotten?
The problem: The town’s sign law doesn’t address the growing proliferation of unsightly election campaign signs – and with an election five months away, if the problem is going to be fixed, it needs to be fixed now.
A discussion of possible sign law amendments was on the published agenda for the May 14 work session. But at the very start of the meeting, Supervisor Lachterman announced he was pulling the item. There would be no discussion. His reasoning: he, with the support of some colleagues, believed the board should review the entire sign law – not just one section – a process that, given the town’s legislative track record, could take at least a year. That would mean no changes before the November election.
I agree the current sign law is outdated. One section actually prohibits digital signs like the one at the Triangle intersection. In 2021, former Supervisor Slater, with full board support, directed town staff to draft amendments that would update the law. Nothing ever happened.
The election sign problem, however, is different. The sign law regulates the size, location and duration of temporary real estate, tag sale, and fairs/carnivals/special event signs – but there are NO regulations for election signs, which are classified as “temporary opinion signs.”
To remedy this glaring omission, I drafted proposed amendments as a starting point for a discussion. I didn’t expect my colleagues to agree with everything I was suggesting. I expected debate. Compromise. What I did not expect was a flat refusal to even discuss the matter – an issue I knew residents very much want addressed, and addressed before the upcoming election.
At stake is the future financial viability of the Yorktown Volunteer Ambulance Corps (VAC) and Mohegan Emergency Medical Services, which provides ambulance coverage for the northern part of Yorktown and the northeast portion of Cortlandt.
Five months ago, on behalf of both VACs, I approached the Cortlandt and Yorktown Town Boards with a proposal to jointly fund a study exploring how the towns could support the VACs by providing some much needed supplemental revenue. Cortlandt agreed immediately. The VACs are still waiting for Yorktown to do the same: Yorktown keeps kicking the can down the road.
Supervisor Lachterman contends the study is premature – that we should wait for a state EMS study to be completed first. But he has consistently misrepresented that study’s scope. The state study is limited to requiring counties to coordinate regional EMS services. It does not – and will not – address how local VACs are funded, which is the sole focus of the proposed joint town study.
When local and county EMS professionals met in March to discuss VAC funding, they unanimously agreed that the state study would not address the local funding problem. Yet Supervisor Lachterman continues to cite the state study as his reason for blocking the local one – and will likely do so again when EMS professionals meet again next week. (The May 28th meeting is open to the public and will be held at the library beginning at 6:30 pm.)
What’s your opinion? Do you want some regulation of campaign signs – this year? Do you want to know what it might cost to give our VACs a financial lifeline? (A study won’t raise your taxes. A study will simply give you and the Town Board the information needed to make a sound decision.)
If your answer is yes, to either issue, make your voice heard. Contact the other 80% of the Town Board and tell them where you stand.
In the meantime, as your 20% on the Town Board, I’ll keep raising the issues that matter to you – and to this town.
Susan Siegel is a member of the Yorktown Town Board.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here